carepov

I agree that many government programs do over-expand (military procurement comes to mind primarily). There needs to be continual assessment to ensure social programs are efficient, effective, and are not being abused. Successful programs should expand and unsuccessful ones should be cut. The most successful social programs will increase the State's wealth in the long run. Regarding the victim mentality, I agree that it is not a good idea to promote this type of mentality and it is 100% a good idea to promote independence and inter-dependence. What you seem to be missing is that some people actually ARE victims (for example: young children, refugees, victims of natural disasters, the abused, disabled...).

Yes it was an accident and a homicide.

How can you be sure that the person does not drive again?

Firstly, the death of Tim was tragic, deepest sympathies to his family. However his gruesome death was an accident. Li was not in control and therefore not responsible. Li should get treatment but no punishment. Hypothetical question: a person with undiagnosed epilepsy has a seizure while driving and kills six pre-school children on the sidewalk, what should society do with this person?

Let me re-cap: 1. Costs: -Enforcing laws and regulations cost money -Adding complexity to manufacturing costs money. For example, if a product is produced with different suppliers of wheat interchangeably some GMO and some not then what? -In California, proponents claimed costs were negligible, opponents AND an independent study claimed costs would be a few hundred dollars per year. -You call "bull" on the opponents; I call "bull" on the proponents. More importantly, a majority of Californian voters defeated the bill. 2. Mandatory labels should be required for all ingredients that affect the health of the consumer, eg: fats, sugars, allergens. Forcing GMO labelling would imply that GMOs are bad for you or less nutritious. All other labelling should be optional, (as long as it is not misleading): "light", "Kosher", "fair trade", "Angus", "trans-fat free", "organic", "GMO-free", etc... I do not want GMOs to be singled out and grouped in with ingredients that are bad for heath. GMO technology is a big benefit to the environment (higher yields, less pesticide use), farmers (why else would they choose to purchase GMO seeds), and consumers (lower prices, better quality). More importantly, there are even more benefits possible - specifically Golden Rice that has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives per year.

Thanks for trying to answer my earlier questions. 1. You are speading lies, here is the truth: http://monsantoblog.com/2012/02/10/whats-served-in-monsantos-cafeterias/ 2. Agiain, your facts are wrong, Monsanto spent $8,112,867 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_37_(2012) IMO, Monsanto wants to promote GMO foods so that they can make more money. Why do you think that Mercola Health Resources spent $1,199,000 promoting the bill?

There are at least two sides to every story - here is another side: http://southwestfarmpress.com/government/farmers-assurance-provision-protects-biotech-crops

The people of California voted against Prop 37: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_37_(2012) Proponents claimed labelling would cost consumers nothing. Oponents claimed it would cost several hundreds of dollars per household per year. Hurray for democracy!

Yes Monsanto is concerned about loosing profits and customers. Why don't you and Bryan answer some recent questions posed to you: 1. Why is "Organic" or "GMO Free" not suffice to inform customers? As I stated before, I assume all others are likely GMOs 2. What negative impacts have GMOs proven to have in humans over the last 40 years? 3. What criteria should regulatory systems have in order to decide what information is required on food labels?

If the information was free I wouldn't care as much. Forcing food companies to label GMOs would waste resources and that is not rational. Some people want all kinds of information on labels, where would you draw the line and say: "x" information is required by law "y" information is not required by law How would you decide?

With all the research on GMO foods, and much of it done by anti-GMO people, I am sure that if a single death or serious illness was proven to be caused by GMO food we would all know in a hurry! Then again I could be wrong, so that why I asked earlier: have GMO foods caused a single human death or illness?

Here is one that I respect: http://www.amazon.ca/Confessions-Greenpeace-Dropout-Sensible-Environmentalist/dp/0986480827

I do not know as much about GMOs as the CFIA, FDA, and as Tim pointed out: The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society - do you? Here's what I know: -These organizations (and many others) say: GMO food is as safe as non-GMO food. -No one has died or even gotten sick from consuming GMO food Of course big-ag, bid-pharma, big-oil, big-chemical and big-tobacco l influence governments. And yes mistakes are made - no system is perfect. Thankfully however our regulatory systems are based on scientific evidence and mistakes are corrected based on scientific evidence. How about the influence of big-organics, big-green? It's obvious from your comments that you think that you know a lot more than you do.

Agreed.

More labelling means more cost. This is a waste of resources. Also, higher food costs will disproportionably hurt poor people. You want Kosher - pay for it You want free range eggs - pay for it You want grass-fed, Kobe, shiatsu-massaged beef - pay for it You want fair trade coffee - pay for it You want organic, GM-free food - pay for it yourself!

All food in Canada is CFIA approved, therefore it is safe. Has anyone died or gotten sick from consuming a GMO food? Where are the massive environmental effects of GMOs? Farmers choose to buy from Monsanto or other suppliers. "Monsanto monopoly control" seems like irrational paranoia to me: http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2010/04/24/measuring-monsanto-2/

You are missing something: children have no choice.

So do orthodox Jews and Muslims, that's why they pay for Koshur/Halal labelling. You pay for what you want and I will pay for what I want.

Overall non-organic foods are as nutritious ass organic foods: http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/organic-food-no-more-nutritious-than-conventionally-grown-food-201209055264 Again you are making a good case for putting aside this silly debate on GM-foods. We should instead focus our energy on foods that we KNOW are making us fat, sick, and literally killing us! -excessive salt, sugar, fat -cigarettes (it kills me to see anti-GMO protesters with a cigarette in their mouth!)

Perhaps by some, but not by me and most likely not by the Doctor quoted in the OP. Don't you think that a worthy goal would be to ensure all kids are safe, and have access to good nutrition and recreation? Not only does this seem morally right, it is a wise economic investment.

Sorry, I was not clear. It is not "my" corn. It's the corn that I bought at the supermarket yesterday. It tastes great and cost me $2 for 5 - that's all I know. I was wondering what I would have to pay for the non-GMO corn?

My corn is on sale 5 for $2.00. How much is the non-GMO?

This is a great argument against GMO labelling. GMO foods are as safe and nutritious as non-GMO foods, therefore we consumers should pay no attention to them and instead pay attention to to the things that matter: -fat (especially trans fats) -sugar -salt -allergens

Shouldn't we also worry about irradiated foods? Shouldn't they be labelled? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation We should also ban microwave ovens. I heard that eating nuked foods will cause cancer in your great-grandchildren.

Giving children free vaccinations saves real health costs. Educating women about FAS saves real health (and other) costs. Providing free needles saves real health costs. Providing kids with nutritious school meals will save health costs. Providing children with accessible active recreation programs will save real heath (and social) costs. A housing-first program for homeless people saves policing and EMS costs. Not every social program is effective and cost-efficient - but many are proven to be, and they should be expanded.